dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Textile Art

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleail>/ unwarranted 
invasion of personal pfivac~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC copy 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
uohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. The petitioner describes 
himself as a textile artist, specializing in the "[dlesign of traditional tapestries woven in the Aubusson 
technique . . . and organization of international art exhibits." The petitioner seeks employment with 
International Arts & Artists (IA&A), Washington, D.C. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United 
States. The director found that the petitioner failed to show that he qualifies for classification as an 
alien of exceptional ability in the arts, or that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be 
in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and numerous exhibits. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -- 
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The petitioner filed the petition on his own behalf on June 20, 2007. The first issue to consider is 
whether the petitioner qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. 
In an introductory statement submitted with the initial filing of the petition, counsel claimed that the 
petitioner "is known throughout the world as the 'Missionary of Modem Tapestry.' . . . [The petitioner] 
has more then [sic] 100 personal and group exhibitions around Europe and the United States. He . . . 
lectures on medieval and modern tapestries. . . . His works have been exhibited around the world for 
more than thirty decades [sic] ." 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii) set forth 
six criteria, at least three of which an alien must meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, the arts, or business. The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2) defines 
"exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a 
given area of endeavor. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow 
place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria below. Qualifications possessed by 
all or most workers in a given field cannot demonstrate "a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered." For example, every qualified physician has a college degree and a license or 
certification, but it defies logic to claim that every physician therefore shows "exceptional" traits. 
Counsel initially claimed that the petitioner has met five of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii), 
listed below. On December 26, 2007, the director issued a request for evidence (WE), instructing the 
petitioner to submit further evidence to satisfy the specific regulatory standards. Counsel's statement in 
response to the RFE directly addressed only one of the six criteria (relating to experience); the 
remainder of counsel's statement consisted of vague assertions that the petitioner's experience and 
reputation establish his exceptional ability in the arts. Similarly, as we shall discuss further, counsel's 
arguments on appeal address only two of the regulatory standards, relying on other factors to support 
the claim of exceptional ability. 
An oficial academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award~om a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The petitioner claims to have studied art at various institutions in Germany and France between 1957 
and 1965. The petitioner did not submit the "official academic record[s]" that the regulation 
specifically requires. 
In an academic evaluation, 
 of Educated Choices LLC stated that the petitioner's 
"progressive professional training and employment experience in Design" is "the equivalent of a 
U.S. Bachelor's degree in Design." An exhibit list submitted with the petition refers to a second 
evaluation by arriving at the same conclusion, but the second evaluation is not in the 
record. More importantly, a third-party educational evaluation is not an official academic record, 
and work experience is covered by a separate criterion, discussed below. 
In the December 26, 2007 RFE, the director instructed the petitioner to submit, among other things, 
evidence of any degrees the petitioner might hold. The petitioner's response to the notice did not 
include any academic records. Counsel, in the accompanying letter, did not claim that the petitioner 
holds any postsecondary academic degrees. 
The director denied the petition on October 8, 2008. In the denial notice, the director found "[tlhe 
petitioner has not established that he holds any formal post-secondary education." 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner "need not possess an advanced degree, or its equivalent, 
in order to qualify for this classification." Nevertheless, the petitioner must satisfy at least three of 
the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(3)(ii). In the initial filing, counsel claimed that the petitioner 
satisfied 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), citing, as evidence, the petitioner's own curriculum vitae and 
an educational evaluation. It is clear that, on appeal, counsel makes no attempt to pursue this claim, 
instead simply observing that an academic degree is not required. We agree with the director's 
finding that the petitioner has not submitted academic records to establish that he holds degrees or 
comparable qualifications in his area of expertise. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The petitioner submits copies of promotional materials, newspaper articles, and letters relating to his 
lectures, his work as a curator of showings of other artists' work, and exhibitions of his own textile 
art. Some of the materials date back to the 1970s. 
In his evaluation, 
 stated that the petitioner "has documented 24 years 10 months of 
progressive professional training and employment experience in Design." 
 did not identify 
what documentary evidence, if any, he reviewed when performing the evaluation. 
In the December 26, 2007 RFE, the director requested employer letters as described in the language 
of the regulation. In response, counsel asserted that the petitioner has "more than ten years of full- 
time employment in his field of endeavor," but identified no evidence to support this claim. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner submitted a letter from President of IA&A. stated 
that IA&A had employed the petitioner "in the position of Exhibition Development Advisor . . . 
since 2006." The petitioner, on Form ETA-750B, had indicated that IA&A hired him in April 2005. 
USCIS records and tax documentation in the record indicates that IA&A first employed the 
petitioner in 2005. 
In the denial notice, the director noted that the credential evaluation "states that the petitioner has 24 
years and 10 months of progressive professional training and employment experience." The director 
found, however, that this evaluation is not first-hand evidence of past employment. On appeal, 
counsel argues: "The record establishes that prior to the filing of this petition [the petitioner] had 
worked in his field of expertise for more than 3 decades." 
Apart from the recent work for arts organizations for which the petitioner has obtained 
nonimmigrant visas, the nature of the petitioner's work, both as an artist and as a consultant and 
lecturer, does not appear to be that of a typical "nine to five" occupation with a steady employer. 
Under these conditions, the petitioner could not obtain letters from former employers to attest to his 
experience. Under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(iii), if the regulatory standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. The petitioner has submitted 
extensive evidence of tapestry work, exhibitions, lectures, and other efforts spanning several 
decades. We find that these materials are comparable evidence of more than ten years of full-time 
experience in tapestry art. The petitioner therefore satisfies this particular regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
On the Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner stated that he intends to work at IA&A, with a salary of 
$78,208 per year. The petitioner did not provide information about the usual salary range for those 
who organize and initiate art shows, or about the usual price ranges for tapestries of comparable size 
and materials to those he makes. Also, the petitioner did not submit documents showing that he has 
ever earned $78,208 per year. 
The petitioner submitted evidence to show that he sold a 5' x 6%' tapestry to a buyer in Louisiana for 
$8,000 in November 2004. A March 2007 letter confirmed the sale of a 5' x 3%' tapestry to a buyer 
in Germany for €6,000, which the petitioner indicated was approximately $8,000. Counsel claimed 
that these amounts were "significantly high . . . in relation to others in the field," but the record 
contains insufficient evidence about tapestry prices to permit a meaningful comparison. 
The only other initial exhibit to mention the petitioner's compensation is a letter from - 
, Resident Associate Study Tours Manager for the Smithsonian Associates, who stated that the 
petitioner received "a modest honorarium" "to lead tours . . . of the tapestries exhibited at the 
National Gallery of Art." 
The director, in the RFE, requested documentation of the petitioner's past and present compensation. 
In response, the petitioner submitted copies of Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 Wage and Tax 
Statements, showing that IA&A paid him $24,000.08 in 2005, $23,815.48 in 2006 and $22,800.18 in 
2007 - indicating a downward trend in his salary from IA&A. This is more than $55,000 less than 
the annual salary that the petitioner claimed on Form 1-140. did not indicate that 
IA&A intended to pay the petitioner $78,208 per year in the future. Rather, he stated that the 
petitioner "receives a yearly salary of $22,800. This rate is reflective of someone of his talent and 
position at a non-for-profit [sic] organization."' 
A printout from the online auction site http://www.artnet.com shows that one of the petitioner's 
works sold in a November 2007 auction, but the printout does not list the price, because that 
information is restricted to subscribers to the site. 
1 
 On the Form 1-129 petition (receipt number EAC 05 035 52678) through which IA&A obtained H-1B nonimmigrant 
status for the petitioner in 2005, IA&A indicated that the petitioner's annual salary would be $24,000. 
In a September 8, 2008 letter to the petitioner, indicated that he paid the petitioner a 
$3,000 "[c]onsulting fee" for helping the Dow Museum obtain the tapestry Lunaris by Jean Lurgat. 
The record does not disclose the usual consulting fee paid in such transactions, nor does the record 
contain certified tax returns or other documentary evidence to establish the petitioner's total annual 
compensation. Instead, the available evidence regarding the petitioner's compensation is 
fragmentary, and there is no comparative evidence at all that would allow us to determine whether 
the petitioner's rate of pay demonstrates exceptional ability. 
In denying the petition, the director stated: "The petitioner has submitted evidence of his successful 
sale of tapestries. However, he has not established that significant sales demonstrate his exceptional 
ability as a tapestry artist." On appeal, counsel does not discuss the petitioner's compensation. We 
agree with the director's finding, uncontested on appeal, that the petitioner has not established that 
his earnings demonstrate exceptional ability. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
Letters from the American Tapestry Alliance and the American Goethe Society of Washington, 
D.C., confirm the petitioner's membership in those organizations. The record, however, contains no 
other information about those entities. Therefore, the petitioner has not shown that membership is a 
hallmark of exceptional ability in the arts, or even that the organizations qualify as professional 
associations. If one may join these organizations simply by paying a fee, or if membership 
requirements are independent of one's occupation or achievements, then there is no reasonable 
support for the claim that the memberships establish exceptional ability in the arts. 
The director, in the December 2007 RFE, requested evidence of the membership requirements for 
the organizations to which the petitioner belongs. In response, the petitioner submitted materials 
relating to the American Tapestry Alliance and Gloria F. Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. These 
materials confirm the petitioner's membership in the organizations, but they do not show the 
organizations' membership requirements. If membership requirements are open or minimal, then 
nothing about holding such a membership demonstrates unusual expertise or exceptional ability. 
In the denial notice, the director stated: "The petitioner has established that he is a member of the 
American Tapestry Alliance and the American Goethe Society." The director did not state whether 
or not these memberships qualify as evidence of exceptional ability. Counsel, on appeal, does not 
address the subject of the petitioner's memberships. We find that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and signijicant contributions to the industry 
or jeld by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
In the initial submission, counsel cited letters from various witnesses who referred to the petitioner 
as an expert in his field, and asserted that these letters constitute recognition for the petitioner's 
Page 7 
achievements and contributions. 
 Director of the Krithe Kollwitz Museum, Berlin, 
Germany, stated: 
[The petitioner] is very well known as an organizer and coordinator of art exhibitions, 
a lecturer on medieval tapestries and as a creator of original art works in this 
interesting genre. . . . 
While staying in Berlin, [the petitioner] presented a lecture in the field of his 
expertise: "The Cluny Tapestries in Paris - The Lady with the Unicorn." Both the 
exhibition of his works and his informative lecture were well received here. 
, President and CEO of the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, stated: 
Several years ago, when we learned that [the petitioner] had been a student of Jean 
Lurgat (1 892-1 966) and was an expert on modem Aubusson tapestries, we asked him to 
appraise the two large Luqat tapestries in our possession: "Le printemps" ("Spring") 
and "L-automne" ("Autumn"). 
Due to his knowledge in this specific field, we were pleased to receive his evaluation of 
the works. We would recommend his expertise without hesitation. 
We previously discussed the letter fromof the Smithsonian Associates. 
 stated 
that the petitioner's "tours were popular and well received. His expertise is extensive and his skill and 
generosity in sharing his knowledge provided an entrancing learning experience for those on the tours." 
As [the petitioner] is known to us as a skillful and resourceful organizer of textile art 
exhibitions . . . we can highly recommend him for his experience in this field to any 
other art institution whom he might want to contact. Needless to say that [the petitioner] 
also has had numerous successful showings of his own work as a tapestry designer 
throughout Europe. . . . Many experts in his area of expertise refer to [the petitioner] as 
(quote) "the motor in the field of Contemporary German Textile Art," as well as (quote) 
"a missionary for tapestry." 
did not identify the sources of the quotations provided. 
The above letters do not constitute formal recognition for achievements or contributions. Rather, they 
represent fairly general letters of recommendation and appreciation. 
The director, in the RFE, requested additional evidence regarding the petitioner's recognition for his 
achievements and contributions. The director indicated that witness letters "should be corroborated 
by documentary evidence in the record." In response, the petitioner submitted additional letters. We 
will discuss these letters in the context of the national interest waiver, later in this decision. 
The director, in denying the petition, acknowledged that the petitioner "has lead [sic] tours" and that 
he "is well respected by his peers," but that the petitioner had not met the regulatory requirements to 
establish exceptional ability in the arts. 
Counsel, on appeal, maintains that the petitioner has achieved "significant artistic recognition for his 
achievements and contributions to his field of endeavor by peers, governmental entities and professional 
and business organizations." To support this claim, counsel cites "Exhibits 2.E-F; see also Exhibit 
3.H.1-4." Appellate exhibit 2 is not divided into subsections; the exhibit consists of photographs of the 
petitioner's work. Exhibit 3 is divided into sections A and B, both of which consist of background 
information about tapestry weaving. In the petitioner's initial exhibit list, exhibit 2.E refers to an 
educational evaluation that appears to be missing fiom the record; exhibits 2.F and 3.H.1-4 are witness 
letters. In any event, most of the evidence submitted on appeal is redundant, consisting of copies of 
previously submitted letters and documents. Counsel refers to several previously submitted exhibits as 
"new" or "additional." The only clearly new exhibits on appeal are a printout fiom a bookseller's web 
site regarding one of the petitioner's books, and materials relating to the November 2008 introduction of 
a new IA&A traveling exhibition. 
The letters in the record demonstrate that witnesses whom the petitioner has selected express support for 
the petition, and consider the petitioner to be an accomplished artist and educator in his field. We hold 
that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) refers to formal, institutional recognition, rather than 
simply the petitioner's ability to locate favorable witnesses to write letters on his behalf. Therefore, we 
find that the petitioner has not submitted evidence of recognition under the cited regulation. 
The remainder of counsel's appeal, relating to the exceptional ability issue, consists of general 
arguments and assertions drawn from outside the regulatory standards at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Many of these arguments (such as artistic showcases, media coverage and judging the work of others) 
derive from unrelated regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3), which pertain to aliens of extraordinary 
ability - a separate classification established by section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The petitioner did, in 
fact, file a separate petition seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. That 
petition (receipt number LIN 07 205 50006, filed June 20, 2007) is still pending. An initial finding 
relating to that petition is the responsibility of the director, not the AAO, and therefore we will offer no 
opinion about the merits of that still-pending petition. The petitioner appears to have submitted both 
petitions with a single packet of evidence, intended to be shared between the two petitions. 
While 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(iii) permits the submission of comparable evidence in lieu of the specified 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii), this clause applies only if those regulatory standards do not readily 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation. The petitioner's inability to meet a criterion that readily applies 
to his occupation does not trigger the "comparable evidence" clause. 
Page 9 
For the reasons provided above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not established that he 
qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. This is not, we stress, a finding 
that the petitioner cannot qualify for that classification. Rather, it is a finding that the evidence 
submitted is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof. It is possible that further qualifying evidence 
exists outside the record, although this is only speculation. The evidence that the petitioner has 
submitted for consideration, however, is not sufficient to meet the evidentiary requirements set forth in 
the cited regulations. 
The second and final issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now USCIS] believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test 
as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] 
standard must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the 
"prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] 
The burden will rest with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the 
job offer will be in the national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Cornmr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver 
must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
Page 10 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offerllabor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
Because the petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying visa classification, he cannot 
qualiQ for a waiver that is available only to aliens in that classification. Nevertheless, in the interest of 
thorough consideration of the record, we will discuss the petitioner's waiver application here. 
In an introductory statement, counsel claimed: 
[The petitioner] is known throughout the world as the "Missionary of Modem 
Tapestry." The last student of the great Jean Lurcat, the father of the 1940s Aubusson 
revival in France, [the petitioner] inherited the name of the studio as a legacy. [The 
petitioner] is recognized for introducing this technique to German weavers in 1966. 
The passive-voice claims that the petitioner "is known" and "is recognized for his work begs the 
question of who knows and recognizes the petitioner in this way. 
Counsel asserted: "The substantial intrinsic merit of Textile Arts is immediately apparent. Museums 
around the country seek to bring to their patrons this ancient and magnificent art form. In addition to 
crafting new pieces, [the petitioner] has, for decades, advocated and worked to disseminate this art form 
around the country and the world." We agree with counsel that the petitioner's occupation meets the 
substantial intrinsic merit test. The director acknowledged as much in the notice of decision. The 
director also found that the petitioner's educational efforts are national in scope, and we will not disturb 
this finding. 
The remaining test is whether the petitioner presents a benefit to the United States that warrants the 
special benefit of a waiver. Counsel stated: "With [the petitioner's] impressive background in Textile 
Arts work and proven track record of success, it is obvious that he has attained a level of expertise well 
above others in his field." This conclusion would be "obvious" only if the petitioner had submitted 
evidence about others in his field, sufficient to allow a meaningful comparison. The petitioner has not 
done so. Instead, the petitioner has catalogued his own accomplishments and declared them to be well 
above those of others in the field. 
The petitioner observed that, under H-1B nonimmigrant status, he can work for only one employer at a 
time, whereas as a permanent resident he could "work for more than one company or art institution as a 
consultant" while also being "self employed as a Fine Arts Dealer." The petitioner has stated his 
personal goals, but he must show how it is not only in his own interest, but in the national interest, for 
him to become a permanent resident of the United States. 
Counsel cited "testimonials fi-om some of the world's top ex erts." We have already discussed some 
witness letters above; we will consider additional letters here. - stated that the petitioner 
"provides IA&A with inroads into public and private collections that have been previously unavailable 
to us. His connections in the art world in Europe are invaluable to us and have significantly enhanced 
the exhibitions we are able to coordinate for display at museums around the United States and abroad." 
I first met [the petitioner] in 1979 while I was working 
Washington, D.C. as assistant tapestry conservator to 
equested [the petitioner's] assistance in the 
 [sic] 
tapestry being considered as a permanent addition to the National Gallery of Art's 20~ 
century collection. [The petitioner] was vastly knowledgeable of the French artist's 
work having studied and worked with the artist. 
I find [the petitioner's] extensive expertise in contemporary and historic tapestries a 
major asset. [The petitioner's] vast knowledge and international network has enabled 
me to assist my clients with accurate information when the authenticity and current 
market value of a tapestry is needed. 
There are few experts in the United States that match [the petitioner's] knowledge of 
tapestry. I will continue to rely on [the petitioner] as a major resource and look forward 
to a long professional association. 
, a tapestry artist in Bethesda, Maryland, discussed the overall merits of 
tapestry art and asserted that the petitioner "is the main source of knowledge and skill and 
encouragement to me and to other artists in this unique field." 
- a tapestry artist based in Port Townsend, Washington, stated: "Very few who write and 
curate have been an actual student and master in the field. Having worked and knowing all these 
techniques only add to the information [the petitioner] can pass on. I find he therefore becomes a 
treasure for the United States of America." 
Tapestry artist f ~ew York, New York, who created some works later exhibited 
by the petitioner, stated: 
As a dealer and collector of antique and modem tapestries, I have had the privilege to 
know and work with [the petitioner] in different capacities and on many projects 
throughout the years. He is not only an expert in this field, with years of scholarly study, 
but a respected artist himself. . . . 
Page 12 
Through [the petitioner's] efforts to educate, whether through his exhibitions or his 
books, the art of tapestry is no longer overlooked in the field of fine art. 
- 
Development Associate at the Bass Museum of Art in Miami Beach, Florida, stated: 
I consider [the petitioner] to be a master of the art of tapestry and a wonderful promoter 
of tapestry arts. In the fall of 2006, the Bass Museum of Art secured a traveling 
exhibition entitled Tapestries: Picasso, Matisse, Calder and other Great Twentieth 
Century Modernists. As curator of the show, [the petitioner] was invited to do several 
gallery talks, discussing the spectacular woven works based on the twentieth cenhuy 
masters named above. His presentation was detailed, comprehensive and, above all, 
enlightening. Given that he had been an assistant to Jean Lurgat in the 1960's, he was 
able to offer first-hand insight into the world of tapestry making. His audience was 
entranced with his knowledge and enthusiasm for his subject. 
Educator at Appleton Museum of Art at Central Florida Community College, Ocala, 
stated: 
[The petitioner] as an artist revitalizes the ancient art of tapestry weaving with his 
incredible talent and skill. . . . 
That he is a consummate artist is secondary to his value to America as an educator, 
museum and gallery exhibit developer and curator. He has frequently lectured at notable 
institutions such as the National Gallery, George Washington and the Smithsonian. . . . 
He is an expert on textile art from the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance in the 
Franco-Flemish territories and has provided valuable appraisals of tapestries to various 
groups as well - probably the only one living in the United States today. 
I experienced the phenomenon that is [the petitioner] first-hand when working with him 
to bring "Tapestries: Picasso, Calder, Matisse and Other Great Twentieth Century 
Modernists," an exhibit that he curated, to the Appleton Museum. . . . I invited hm to 
lecture our guests and found that he was most interested (and able) in targeting our 
particular population and bringing "The High Art of Tapestry" (the title of his lecture) 
down to the ranks of common man who knew little to nothing about this ancient 
adcraft. . . . 
[The petitioner] is eager to share his wealth of knowledge and has proven hs value in 
innumerable venues in the United States. 
, President of Contemporary Tapestry Weaving, Royal Oak, Maryland, stated: 
From my perspective as a tapestry artist and gallery owner, I regard [the petitioner] as 
the single most powerful influence behind the revival in tapestry art that has occurred 
within the United States over the past decade. . . . [H]e has breathed new life into the 
artistic scene and generated a resurgence of public interest in the art of tapestry. 
Over the years, I have followed his mission of raising public awareness and of creating 
an environment for the growth of a new generation of tapestry artists in the U.S.A. 
Artistic Director of the Moon Rain Centre for Tapestry Arts in Canada, stated: "it would 
represent an impossible and unthinkable loss if [the petitioner] were not permitted to continue his work 
for tapestry and for tapestry artists." 
of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, stated that "tapestry as an 
art form, is undervalued. [The petitioner] is trying to give new Iife to tapestry by educating the art 
community and the broader community that has an interest in the arts." added that the 
petitioner "is currently working on a book about tapestry. . . . I believe that the book he is getting ready 
to publish will be important. I must disclose that he has included my work in the book. This should be 
a book that will be acquired by libraries and art enthusiasts." 
With respect to the aforementioned book, the record contains a photocopied draft manuscript of To 
Weave Or Not To Weave, partly typed and partly handwritten on lined paper. There is no evidence that 
this book has been published or accepted for publication; the petitioner stated that he expected the book 
"to be published by [the] end of 2008." The record documents the publication of exhibition catalogues 
by the petitioner. The record contains a listing from http://www.arnazon.com for the petitioner's 2006 
book Tapestries: The Great Twentieth Century Modernists, published by the Trust for Museum 
Exhibitions (which was the petitioner's employer from 2002 to 2005). The record also refers to a 1994 
exhibition catalog. 
In denying the petition on October 8,2008, the director concluded that the petition rests largely "on the 
lack of skilled artisans providing similar benefit." The director noted that worker shortages are 
addressed by the labor certification process, and therefore such a shortage is not a basis for waiving that 
process. See Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 21 8. On appeal, counsel quoted from 
numerous witness letters and stated that the petitioner "has demonstrated that hs past, current and 
prospective benefit to the advancement of the arts, particularly the art of tapestry, in the United States is 
substantially greater than a minimally qualified U.S. worker." 
The submissions discussed above show that the petitioner is well-regarded by many in the tapestry art 
community, particularly individuals who have worked with the petitioner or whose works have been 
part of exhibits organized by the petitioner. The record, however, contains little concrete evidence to 
show that the petitioner has been especially influential either as an artist or as an educator. The record, 
for instance, does not show that art schools have incorporated the petitioner's writings on tapestry into 
their curricula, or that independent art critics have consistently praised the petitioner's original art 
works. The published materials regarding the petitioner's work tend to be promotional in nature, 
announcing upcoming shows and presentations. The record indicates that the petitioner has been a 
prolific artist, but the record does not show that the petitioner's works appear in public with any 
frequency except in shows that the petitioner himself has organized. Witnesses have credited the 
petitioner with a resurgence in interest in tapestry, but the record does not document the extent of this 
resurgence, or the degree to which the petitioner is responsible for it. 
The record establishes that the petitioner is an experienced scholar of tapestry art, as well as a prolific 
and dedicated artist in his own right. These facts, however, do not establish exceptional ability as the 
regulations define that term, nor do they meet the higher threshold of the national interest waiver. The 
record is not without exaggeration, such as counsel's assertion that, by serving as a temporary tour 
guide, the petitioner played a leading and critical role for the Smithsonian Institution. Such hyperbolic 
statements diminish the credibility of counsel's other assertions. 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act clearly states that aliens of exceptional ability in the arts can 
qualify for the national interest waiver. The art of tapestry, while perhaps more obscure than other 
fine arts such as painting and music, falls within this category. At the same time, an alien seeking 
the waiver must meet the evidentiary requirements of the regulations and case law. We find that the 
petitioner's evidence, while copious in quantity, fails to satisfy those requirements. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.